RILAK & TSOCAS

[2018] FamCA 8

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RILAK & TSOCAS [2018] FamCA 8

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – Procedural.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Rilak

RESPONDENT: Mr Tsocas

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2062 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 15 January 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 23 November 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Litigant in person

Orders

Orders made 23 November 2017

1. The Application for Review filed by the mother on 22 November 2017 is dismissed.

2. The Application in a Case filed 15 November 2017 remain listed on 19 January 2018 as previously noted.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Rilak & Tsocas has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2062 of 2010

Ms Rilak

Applicant

And

Mr Tsocas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The case coordinator has contacted my chambers indicating that the mother seeks that I publish reasons for dismissing her Application in a Case filed 22 November 2017 seeking a review of a decision made by the Docket Registrar on 15 November 2017. The Docket Registrar had dismissed the mother’s application for urgent listing of her Initiating Application filed 15 November 2017 in which she sought interim orders. The mother sought that her application for interim orders be listed prior to 15 December 2017. The Docket Registrar listed that matter on 19 January 2018.

2. The interim application sought, inter alia, to vary parenting orders that had been made in November and December 2015 in respect of the parties’ child, B, born in 2010 aged seven (nearly eight). Those orders provided that the child live with her father and granted only supervised time to the mother.

3. The mother wanted an urgent listing so that the child could spend unsupervised time with her from 15 December 2017 until the commencement of the 2018 school term, which in 2017 would cover her other interim application for time on Christmas Day and on the child’s birthday in 2018, although I note that the listing by the Docket Registrar pre dates the child’s eighth birthday.

4. The mother says, because of multiple failings by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, she has had no face to face time with the child since the end of 2015.

5. The mother’s evidence does not demonstrate that the child needed this matter to be urgently listed with a possible result that it would disrupt the consideration of other matters that had already been given other listings prior to the return date sought by the mother. Consequently, the mother has not demonstrated, nor addressed in her supporting evidence, why the normal provisions of rule 5.01A Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) should not apply.

6. Rule 5.01A Family Law Rules is in the following terms:

   (1) This rule applies to an application for a parenting order relating in whole or part to the school holiday period beginning in December in a year (the application year) and extending to January in the following year.

   (2) The application must be filed before 4.00 pm on the second Friday in November of the application year.

   Note: Except in cases of urgency (where the usual criteria for an urgent hearing will apply), an application filed after the deadline under subrule (2) will be allocated the next available date in the usual way. That date may be after Christmas. In other words, if the deadline has passed, the fact that an application relates to the school holiday period will not of itself justify a listing before Christmas. In urgent cases, applications to abridge times and to list a matter on short notice can be made to the Registry.

7. The mother’s application was not filed prior 4pm on the second Friday in November and urgency was not otherwise made out.

8. It was for these Reasons I dismissed the mother’s application for a listing of her interim application prior to 15 December 2017 and confirmed the listing by the Docket Registrar on 19 January 2018.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 15 January 2018.

Associate:

Date: 15 January 2018